World Champion Tiebreaks: A Counter-Intuitive Proposal.

The problem with TPLV is that centipawn loss is not ideal since a -2 centipawn loss is treated the same when going from +10 to +8 and +2 to 0. In both cases the centipawn loss is treated the same even though in the first case the player is still winning, while in the second case it goes from winning to equal.

No, I mean that both have their advantages and disadvantages, so at the end of the day, TWPL would only be useful from the late stages of the game. For the beginning, it almost always remains near 0.0, maybe going up to a max in +1.8 and a min of -1.6, but that would be not too useful. Instead, until the last phase of the game, why not use TPLV? It’s useful for that stag, as there are no large deviations in normal circumstances. In extreme cases, we can use TWPL, so that we have a foolproof system.

Just my honest opinion, @RuyLopez1000, I think that we should do it in this way.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

This is a tiebreak mechanism. The goal is to win the match on games.

Being a tie breaker doesn't change any of my arguments?

Why does this tiebreak mechanism change that?

For starters because your punishing risky play, unsound sacs etc. Yes, it only matters if the end result is a draw- but I don't see why such a playstyle should be punished even more then it already is with how safe gms play. As an example, sindarov won against prag in r3 of the candidates with a dubious sac. Now it obviously didn't go into tie breakers, but if it did under this system such an interesting play would have been punished. It just incentivizes going into safe and uncomplicated lines where its hard to make any real mistakes.

Why is it dystopian?

Because we are judging the results of humans based on how much they play like an engine?

For an actual suggestion, I would consider some kind of classical Armageddon. Not sure if it would work, but it's atleast worth trying I believe

You forgot to put a point here

@PRIYAMVAD said ^

The problem with TPLV is that centipawn loss is not ideal since a -2 centipawn loss is treated the same when going from +10 to +8 and +2 to 0. In both cases the centipawn loss is treated the same even though in the first case the player is still winning, while in the second case it goes from winning to equal.

No, I mean that both have their advantages and disadvantages, so at the end of the day, TWPL would only be useful from the late stages of the game. For the beginning, it almost always remains near 0.0, maybe going up to a max in +1.8 and a min of -1.6, but that would be not too useful.

Why is it not useful? It gets added up. The Total Win Percentage Loss (TWPL) sums up the win percentage loss across all the moves in the match, like the Total Pawn Loss Value did.

Instead, until the last phase of the game, why not use TPLV? It’s useful for that stag, as there are no large deviations in normal circumstances.

I don't see what the problem with TWPL is.

In extreme cases, we can use TWPL, so that we have a foolproof system.
Just my honest opinion, @RuyLopez1000, I think that we should do it in this way.

But what is the disadvantage of TWPL? There is none I can see. And for TPLV there is a disadvantage.

@elkress said ^

This is a tiebreak mechanism. The goal is to win the match on games.

Being a tie breaker doesn't change any of my arguments?

You seem to think that this reduces the championship to engine evals but it doesn't. It is still a match where the players play to win games.

Why does this tiebreak mechanism change that?

For starters because your punishing risky play, unsound sacs etc. Yes, it only matters if the end result is a draw- but I don't see why such a playstyle should be punished even more then it already is with how safe gms play. As an example, sindarov won against prag in r3 of the candidates with a dubious sac. Now it obviously didn't go into tie breakers, but if it did under this system such an interesting play would have been punished. It just incentivizes going into safe and uncomplicated lines where its hard to make any real mistakes.

It's not being punished because this is a relative measure. We don't care about the accuracy overall, just who plays better.

There is the question of style. Tactical and complex players have lower inaccuracies. But this is fine for a two-player event as TWPL is a relative measure. We are only interested in whether one player is better than the other. As an example, Firouzja playing tactical chess doesn't hurt him. It only hurts him if his opponent manages to defend. The opponent also has to cope with the pressure. The opponent making errors will give them a worse TWPL than Firouzja. Only way they can have a better TWPL than Firouzja is if they defend his attack with an advantage. In which case they deserve to have a better TWPL. For this reason, TWPL may not be suitable for tournaments as solid players would be favored over tactical/complex players.

Why is it dystopian?

Because we are judging the results of humans based on how much they play like an engine?

In the case of a tie, we are judging who plays better Classical Chess as opposed to rapid and blitz tiebreaks. Only in a tie. This system incentivizes wins in Classical. A player trailing in the TWPL will play for a win. This reduces draws as players can't rely on going into a fast play tiebreak. A player leading can't offer a draw in better positions or they lose TWPL. The changing values of the TWPL throughout matches or tournaments adds drama and tension.

For an actual suggestion, I would consider some kind of classical Armageddon. Not sure if it would work, but it's atleast worth trying I believe

You forgot to put a point here

Interesting Idea, I don't know what I think about Classical Armageddon. I know that I don't see a problem with the TWPL suggestion.

Ok, so, imagine this hypothetical scenario in which one side is having +2, and turns the game into a -2. That would mean a 55.2% change in the game. But you continue on and on and on like that until the point that both have the same TWPL. And this continues until the end of the tournament. What if they are equal? That would mean you would need more methods for tiebreaks. That’s where TPLV can come in handy. I’m not saying that we should calculate the whole game with TPLV, only the beginning, since we don’t have too much of changes that are going on in the eval. In fact, I would actually be surprised if you can find any 2700+ game in which an advantage larger than 3.5 was achieved in the first 25 moves without blunders and too bad moves.

Just saying that we can save time for the start of the game, we should use TPLV as it is additive, and we can save time with it.

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

You seem to think that this reduces the championship to engine evals but it doesn't. It is still a match where the players play to win games.

I don't. I just think that players will change their openings and playstyles based on these rules. Even if it may not be the mathematically most accurate decision say, most modern gms will default to taking it safe I'd say. So less sicilian and even more petrov. or worse yet, it'll become even more of a test of chicken on who drops out of preparation first. Instead of looking for an early novelty as is becoming the trend now.

There is the question of style. Tactical and complex players have lower inaccuracies. But this is fine for a two-player event as TWPL is a relative measure. We are only interested in whether one player is better than the other. As an example, Firouzja playing tactical chess doesn't hurt him. It only hurts him if his opponent manages to defend. The opponent also has to cope with the pressure. The opponent making errors will give them a worse TWPL than Firouzja. Only way they can have a better TWPL than Firouzja is if they defend his attack with an advantage. In which case they deserve to have a better TWPL. For this reason, TWPL may not be suitable for tournaments as solid players would be favored over tactical/complex players.

This does make sense from a mathematical standpoint, I'm just not sure if players will interact with it the same way

In the case of a tie, we are judging who plays better Classical Chess as opposed to rapid and blitz tiebreaks. Only in a tie. This system incentivizes wins in Classical. A player trailing in the TWPL will play for a win. This reduces draws as players can't rely on going into a fast play tiebreak. A player leading can't offer a draw in better positions or they lose TWPL. The changing values of the TWPL throughout matches or tournaments adds drama and tension.

Again, I feel this is overly optimistic. But I'm coming around to the idea

@PRIYAMVAD said ^

Ok, so, imagine this hypothetical scenario in which one side is having +2, and turns the game into a -2. That would mean a 55.2% change in the game. But you continue on and on and on like that until the point that both have the same TWPL. And this continues until the end of the tournament. What if they are equal? That would mean you would need more methods for tiebreaks.

The odds that TWPL will be exactly equal is almost impossible.

That’s where TPLV can come in handy. I’m not saying that we should calculate the whole game with TPLV, only the beginning, since we don’t have too much of changes that are going on in the eval. In fact, I would actually be surprised if you can find any 2700+ game in which an advantage larger than 3.5 was achieved in the first 25 moves without blunders and too bad moves.

But why? And why only the opening?

Just saying that we can save time for the start of the game, we should use TPLV as it is additive, and we can save time with it.

I don't understand why?

@elkress said ^

You seem to think that this reduces the championship to engine evals but it doesn't. It is still a match where the players play to win games.

I don't. I just think that players will change their openings and playstyles based on these rules. Even if it may not be the mathematically most accurate decision say, most modern gms will default to taking it safe I'd say. So less sicilian and even more petrov. or worse yet, it'll become even more of a test of chicken on who drops out of preparation first. Instead of looking for an early novelty as is becoming the trend now.

There is the question of style. Tactical and complex players have lower inaccuracies. But this is fine for a two-player event as TWPL is a relative measure. We are only interested in whether one player is better than the other. As an example, Firouzja playing tactical chess doesn't hurt him. It only hurts him if his opponent manages to defend. The opponent also has to cope with the pressure. The opponent making errors will give them a worse TWPL than Firouzja. Only way they can have a better TWPL than Firouzja is if they defend his attack with an advantage. In which case they deserve to have a better TWPL. For this reason, TWPL may not be suitable for tournaments as solid players would be favored over tactical/complex players.

This does make sense from a mathematical standpoint, I'm just not sure if players will interact with it the same way

In the case of a tie, we are judging who plays better Classical Chess as opposed to rapid and blitz tiebreaks. Only in a tie. This system incentivizes wins in Classical. A player trailing in the TWPL will play for a win. This reduces draws as players can't rely on going into a fast play tiebreak. A player leading can't offer a draw in better positions or they lose TWPL. The changing values of the TWPL throughout matches or tournaments adds drama and tension.

Again, I feel this is overly optimistic. But I'm coming around to the idea

I think they will interact with it like that because it's logical. What would be the benefit of playing safer openings? It would just make the TWPL a coin toss. In a regular match the GMs don't play Petrov every game because they know they have to win. Besides, the player with a lower TWPL would still have to play for a win anyway. Now in the current standard match with rapid and blitz tiebreak we have the scenario you described. Carlsen agreed to a draw in a better position against Caruana because he didn't want to risk it in the 2018 match. Under the new tiebreak that wouldn't occur.

If you wanna go for complicated play in a game, why would TWPL make a difference? In the standard match you would take a risk. If you feel confident enough to play better than your opponent in that position, why would your confidence level change with the TWPL system?

It's relative. It doesn't matter how badly you play, just as long as you play better than your opponent.

An Armageddon tiebreak was discussed by the paper authors:

The most common final tiebreaker is the so-called Armageddon game, where White has more time (e.g., five minutes) to think on the clock than Black (e.g., four minutes), but Black wins in the event of a draw. However, this format sparks controversy among elite players and chess aficionados alike: “Armageddon is a chess penalty shoot-out, a controversial format intended to prevent draws and to stimulate interesting play. It can also lead to chaotic scrambles where pieces fall off the board, players bang down their moves and hammer the clocks, and fractions of a second decide the result” (Leonard Barden, The Guardian [12]).

Interesting

The odds that TWPL will be exactly equal is almost impossible.

But as @elkress said, as players will play more engine moves, it will become slowly but steadily more and more probable. At one point, like in 2-3 yrs, it will just become a sea of players having nearly the same to the same TWPL. And we don’t want that. TPLV, however, is going to be harder than anything to equal out in.